[News] Eisenberg: How Did Ravens Get Here?

[slowboater]

In chess, sometimes strategically you must give up the queen to win. Joe has got to go in order to rebuild the Ravens team within the next five years. Joe is a great player on and off the field, and teams will give up a lot for him. Time to retool or merely stay adrift.

The Ravens can't afford to get rid of Joe, even if they wanted to. Joe Received a $29M signing bonus and is receiving another miscellaneous bonus of $4.75M per year. Understanding that the Ravens still owe Joe, $11.6M of his original signing bonus, plus another $4.75M misc. bonus through the remainder of the contract, the Ravens are in Cap purgatory.

 

Joe is not elite but not the biggest problem. Getting rid of Rice's, Ngata's and Pitta's cap hit is a start. With a higher draft placement next year, maybe the Ravens will be able to draft better quality blue chippers that will make a difference.

 

We can only hope.

[Crusader]

This is the season Ravens need to try every one on the team out as long as it does not dig the Ravens deeper in a hole money wise. No reason Asa is sitting. These are the dumb decisions I reference earlier. Accept the fact the team blew it and move on and stop the Joe hate.

[Crusader]

I predicted 2015 season after the purge in 2012 All john has to do is step back and look at this team objectively but he will not humble himself. I thought they had a plan from the move they made but oviously not. Its like two people trying to drive the bus.

[btfan2]

@Billy D -- You pretty much covered it.....

[baru643]

This is the season Ravens need to try every one on the team out as long as it does not dig the Ravens deeper in a hole money wise. No reason Asa is sitting. These are the dumb decisions I reference earlier. Accept the fact the team blew it and move on and stop the Joe hate.

I totally agree on stopping the Joe hate, he is a very good QB and we are lucky to have him.  I am sure that there are a number of teams that would love to have Flacco as their starting QB, I know he isn't as flashy as Brady, Rodgers, or Manning, but he is a solid player.  The biggest reason we are losing this year is that our defense can't seem to step up and make a 4th quarter stop, I also think that it is time we get a new DC. We are also up against the salary cap with over 20 million in dead money (Rice, Pitta, etc…) this year which doesn’t help the situation. 

 

 

Hopefully we can retool with the draft and pick up a couple of impact players (maybe a shutdown corner and WR) next offseason. As for the rest of this season, let’s just find out what we have in player talent and depth and then reassess for next year.  It does sting a bit that we won’t be in the playoffs this year though.

[DaRupp]

This article would have been complete if we compared the Ravens' losses and draft busts to those of the Packers, Steelers, Patriots, Colts and Seahawks. Teams lose players due to injury. Teams whiff on draft prospects. All those issues notwithstanding this team should be at least 3 and 2 right now, period.

 

Let us stop dodging the elephant in the room: The coaching of this team is bad. They have gotten away with it for years because of superior talent on the field. Tell me, who is the weak link on that Defense? The problem is the scheme and a Defensive Coordinator that cannot make situational adjustments to prevent giving up late leads. We can dance around it all we want, we're just fooling ourselves.

This. This right here.

 

I'll say it again. This.

[Ravens4Real]

Everyone whining about injuries is just sour grapes. It happens to every team. Hensleys article on ESPN stated that we have 9 of our projected 22 starters miss time already. He even included Perriman, who you couldn't say was a starter, Pitta, who we all knew wasn't playing for at least the first part of the year. He also included Forsett who missed all of one series. Hensley seems to be the king of whining and excuses when it comes to the Ravens.

I mean common people, we don't have to look very far to see other teams overcoming injuries. Our rival, the Steelers, are missing far more important people on their team and are sitting at 3-2 and should be 4-1 if they had a kicker.

They are missing Big Ben, Bryant, Pouncey, Shazier, Cortez Allen and Bell was out for two whole games.

At some point, and it usually happens every year to every team, the next man has to step up. It just seems like this football team tends to make excuses when the next man is supposed to step up.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Ravens4Real

[riseNConquer81]

Can't afford Tate by trade or by cap? Because they could afford him both ways, if they wanted, but given the Ravens don't have a chance at the playoffs (at last not reasonably), they won't trade for him, in all likelihood, so it's likely not even worth fantasizing about.

Tate's cap hit is 3.1M, we only have 2M and change. and he has three years left on that deal which means no extension, i highly doubt any restructuring since he's already done that once. His cap is $7M and up for the next 3 years, i doubt we had plans for that in our near future. how you figure we could afford him?

and what do you mean by trade or cap? when you acquire a player through trade, you take on his contract, we're on the hook for whatever he's owed if he comes here.

[EddiOK]

So how in the world does NE do it? Year in and out, they are drafting at the same level as us, getting the same rotation of players as a successful team, yet they can re-load and win regularly. I'm not talking Brady and the O - I really mean the D, that has stayed consistently above average to very good over the years. Are they conditioning differently, and getting less injuries as a result? Is Belicheat handing out bags of unmarked Benjamins in the back parking lot? It's so frustrating to see them keep sailing, and us getting grounded like this.

[bigcatfrank1]

Just go out there and play like Ravens! all this BS isnt going to change anything. They arent going to lay down, they will win games playoffs or not!

[catgirl54]

So how in the world does NE do it? Year in and out, they are drafting at the same level as us, getting the same rotation of players as a successful team, yet they can re-load and win regularly. I'm not talking Brady and the O - I really mean the D, that has stayed consistently above average to very good over the years. Are they conditioning differently, and getting less injuries as a result? Is Belicheat handing out bags of unmarked Benjamins in the back parking lot? It's so frustrating to see them keep sailing, and us getting grounded like this.

 

That is my question.  How in the world do the Patriots do it?  They are at the top of the heap every single season, so one would logically think they would be strapped just like the Ravens.  Yet, somehow, they have the magic formula and make it work every single season.  The Packers would be another example.  I understand their players love it there so much, they just plain don't WANT to leave.  The injury bug has bit us hard this year, but we haven't lost Joe yet.  He just doesn't have anyone to throw to.  I had never heard of Darren Waller until we played the Browns, and I understand he is injured  now too.  That makes me really wonder about our strength and conditioning staff.  I'm sure they're looking at everything.  Bisciotti does not like losing.  But it sure is frustrating.

[UnitasWeStand19]

Sorry John I always like and appreciate your articles but there is no way in hell the Ravens scored with Courtney Upshaw. You don't draft a guy that high to be a one-dimensional edge setter who never, and i mean never gets to the QB. Upshaw hasn't registered a QB sack since 2013. That's so bad it's almost comical. Upshaw was originally slated as a top 15 pick but plummeted leading up to the draft. At the Senior Bowl when playing against the top Tackles in the country, scouts saw he had heavy legs & slow feet with zero short area quickness. Sorry but as the Ravens top pick in the 2012 draft I'd say he's been a disappointment...

[BmoreBird22]

Tate's cap hit is 3.1M, we only have 2M and change. and he has three years left on that deal which means no extension, i highly doubt any restructuring since he's already done that once. His cap is $7M and up for the next 3 years, i doubt we had plans for that in our near future. how you figure we could afford him?and what do you mean by trade or cap? when you acquire a player through trade, you take on his contract, we're on the hook for whatever he's owed if he comes here.

You're on the hook for BASE SALARY, which is 750K, so yeah, the Ravens can afford him cap wise. A team does not take on the entire "cap hit" in a trade because they never paid him a signing bonus.

Remember, the Ravens traded for Eugene Monroe, but this was only possible because the Jaguars agreed to convert base salary into signing bonus so that the Ravens could fit him under the cap.

It'd be a matter if they'd like to give up the pick required, probably around a third rounder, which they could afford, would probably be hesitant to do so with how the season is going.

And as far as next year goes (and beyond), you expect another raise in the cap since reports early on were it would continue to rise and you probably expect Flacco to restructure (extend) his contract. Not to mention $20M in dead cap comes off the books next season. Anyway, it's not like $7M (which it wouldn't actually be until the final year of his deal) is some inordinate number for the cap because of the going rate for a number one receiver is far higher (cap hits of $11M+ are not unusual).

Edited October 15, 2015 by BmoreBird22

[SteelCityRavenFan]

I think that the people calling for Pees' head right now need to understand that given the state of our roster its hard to imagine that getting rid of Pees will turn things around.

It seems obvious to me that a large part of our defensive woes are due to injuries to key players. That combined with the fact that we lost guys like Ngata and McPhee during the offseason due to our salary cap issues(and perhaps overzealousness of the front office) has left us stretched thin.

Game plans and defensive systems are important, but at the end of the day much of the NFL is about the man-on-man matchups that happen on the field and whether your guys can outplay the other guys. It doesn't matter what defensive philosophy or play calling you have, when you are missing key players and the other team's players are simply more talented than the ones you have on the field winning is going to be very hard.

I fully agree that the bend but don't break philosophy of Dean Pees has some weak spots and has put us at odds with our traditional tough D. Although in some ways I believe that given the fact that the rules now heavily favor offenses the ultra-stingy defenses we saw in the AFC North of yesteryear may be a thing of the past. But the fact of the matter is that the question of whether to continue with Pees' philosophy is probably one best left to the offseason. I don't see how changing DCs and adopting a new system in the middle of a season makes sense. If we're going to revamp our defense and the way it works that's a decision that needs to be made with a lot of serious thought about what direction we want to go in as a team. If we move too hastily to simply save this season or make a statement we could get someone who doesn't fit and set us back for future seasons.

It looks to me that our biggest problem isn't so much as bad play calling as the fact that our guys (and especially our secondary) are simply getting beat by the other teams. That to me is a roster problem, not a system problem. Unfortunately this takes time to repair itself. If we want to be competitive for years to come it is probably best to ride this out and leave the question of a new DC for the offseason when we have more time and when more talented coaches will be available for hire.

[RavenManiac#7]

I am a Die-Hard Raven fan and always will be NO MATTER WHAT. I, also, absolutely Hate to lose. So, obviously this season, so far, has been very painful for me to watch. But, I can't say that I'm surprised or that I didn't see it coming. As much as I love my team, I have been aware that we have numerous problems and shortcomings and, of course, all the injuries have certainly added to our woes. Of course, I will continue to watch every game and hope for the best, but I do try to find a little solace in the fact that every painful loss we suffer gives us a better draft choice in the next draft. For that reason, although I am certainly NOT advocating that we "tank" the season, I do think it would be to our benefit to play everyone for evaluation purposes to see just what we do and don't have moving forward as we rebuild our team. Since I do not think we have a shot at the playoffs, I think it best that we do as I suggested and, again, remind ourselves that the pain brings along with it the best draft choices we've had in a very long time and the chance to rebuild at a faster rate. It sure does still hurt, though.

[riseNConquer81]

So how in the world does NE do it? Year in and out, they are drafting at the same level as us, getting the same rotation of players as a successful team, yet they can re-load and win regularly. I'm not talking Brady and the O - I really mean the D, that has stayed consistently above average to very good over the years. Are they conditioning differently, and getting less injuries as a result? Is Belicheat handing out bags of unmarked Benjamins in the back parking lot? It's so frustrating to see them keep sailing, and us getting grounded like this.

easy: you mis-perceive their defense.

They play in the AFC East, its a cake walk division, has been for decades. their defensive numbers lie a lot because of that, outside of last year. when they had Browner and Revis, they really havent been very good on D at all.

once upon a time we blew them out 33-14 on THEIR turf, with Flacco only completing 4 passes for 34 yards. and no it wasnt all the defense: we put up 4 offensive TDs in that game.

Outside of last season, the Pats have not been remotely good on D since Pees left them.

[riseNConquer81]

You're on the hook for BASE SALARY, which is 750K, so yeah, the Ravens can afford him cap wise. A team does not take on the entire "cap hit" in a trade because they never paid him a signing bonus.

Remember, the Ravens traded for Eugene Monroe, but this was only possible because the Jaguars agreed to convert base salary into signing bonus so that the Ravens could fit him under the cap.

It'd be a matter if they'd like to give up the pick required, probably around a third rounder, which they could afford, would probably be hesitant to do so with how the season is going.

And as far as next year goes (and beyond), you expect another raise in the cap since reports early on were it would continue to rise and you probably expect Flacco to restructure (extend) his contract. Not to mention $20M in dead cap comes off the books next season. Anyway, it's not like $7M (which it wouldn't actually be until the final year of his deal) is some inordinate number for the cap because of the going rate for a number one receiver is far higher (cap hits of $11M+ are not unusual).

alright. in any case, you still need Detroit to want to trade him. getting back to my original question: i havent heard or read of anybody trying to deal tate. they have a really good offense, and it should be that way for at least a couple more years, they dont get much out of offloading him right now. Especially if they opt to look for a new QB after this season and start moving on from Stafford, good weapons for a new QB are invaluable, as all of us should know all too well.

[BillyD]

easy: you mis-perceive their defense.

They play in the AFC East, its a cake walk division, has been for decades. their defensive numbers lie a lot because of that, outside of last year. when they had Browner and Revis, they really havent been very good on D at all.

once upon a time we blew them out 33-14 on THEIR turf, with Flacco only completing 4 passes for 34 yards. and no it wasnt all the defense: we put up 4 offensive TDs in that game.

Outside of last season, the Pats have not been remotely good on D since Pees left them.

How many years ago was that? You seem to give Pees way too much credit. That 'mediocre' defense has gotten them to 6 SBs and won 4. I seem to remember you giving Pees all kinds of kudos for winning a SB in Baltimore. With the 17th ranked defense that season. During a historic playoff run by...the Baltimore offense. Besides, the point I believe that pretty much everyone is trying to make is that NE continues to win. Year in and year out. Your point is well taken that the AFC East isn't exactly competitive, but NE hasn't generally played the AFC East in the playoffs on their way to 6 SBs under this regime and its scheme. And some cheating as well, but we will put that aside for now. As the Harbaugh ''philosophy" takes hold here in Baltimore, it has not gotten better. It's gotten worse. If I didn't know better I'd say you must work for Harbs and the coaching staff, because you sure love to give them credit when the record after the departure of good coordinators and veterans just isn't good. Edited October 15, 2015 by BillyD

[BmoreBird22]

alright. in any case, you still need Detroit to want to trade him. getting back to my original question: i havent heard or read of anybody trying to deal tate. they have a really good offense, and it should be that way for at least a couple more years, they dont get much out of offloading him right now. Especially if they opt to look for a new QB after this season and start moving on from Stafford, good weapons for a new QB are invaluable, as all of us should know all too well.

There were writers, like Aaron Wilson, speculating because of how unhappy he was and how the Ravens desperately needed a receiver. Wilson doesn't just pull stuff out of a hat, so there's probably a good chance that the Ravens really did inquire and try to get a price.

However, all of that disappeared after the Ravens went to 1-4, which goes back to what I said in that the Ravens aren't contenders, so they may be hesitant to buy, especially if they get a high pick. Although, I'd give a third for Tate, doesn't mean Ozzie would.

If be surprised if the Lions moved on from Stafford because finding a franchise quarterback is about as hard as it is to find a good quarterback, but right now they are primed for Jared Goff. We'll see.

[riseNConquer81]

How many years ago was that?

the fact that you started your post out with this tells me immediately that you dont even understand the conversation. The question was:

So how in the world does NE do it? Year in and out, they are drafting at the same level as us, getting the same rotation of players as a successful team, yet they can re-load and win regularly.

how many years ago it was is quite irrelevant, since the Pats' historical performance is the subject at hand, which necessitates discussing the past.

Im not going to bother reading past this point.

go re read the thread, and try again.

Edited October 16, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[BillyD]

the fact that you started your post out with this tells me immediately that you dont even understand the conversation. The question was:

how many years ago it was is quite irrelevant, since the Pats' historical performance is the subject at hand, which necessitates discussing the past.

Im not going to bother reading past this point.

go re read the thread, and try again.

Man, some people are pretty short sighted.

 

The reason NE continually wins is because of their coaching philosophy.  And probably some twisting of the rules.  Regardless, 6 AFC Championships.  4 SB wins.  Playing in a weak division does not translate to 21 playoff wins, 6 AFC Championships, and 4 SBs since Belichick took over there. Playing in a weak division might get you to the dance.  It doesn't win in the playoffs, and it doesn't win SBs.  Sorry champ. 

 

The question of how many years ago is absolutely relevant, specifically because you stated that NE hasn't had a decent defense since Pees left. Who was the NE DC that year in question, when the Ravens put up 33 on the Pats in their house?  DEAN PEES! Therefore, while you defend Pees, you throw out an example of a Pees run defense that gave up 33 points at home in the playoffs.  Genius, man.

 

And just as a history lesson on the Pees era in NE, who was the DC in NE when they gave up a 21-6 half time lead against the Colts in the AFC Championship game in 2006? Dean Pees.  Who was the DC in NE when they allowed Eli Manning to go 9 for 14 for 152 yards and 2 TDs in the 4th quarter and lost the SB?  Dean Pees.  Dean Pees cannot coach a defense to hold a lead.

 

You should check history before you quote history. 

Edited October 16, 2015 by BillyD

[BillyD]

That is my question.  How in the world do the Patriots do it?  They are at the top of the heap every single season, so one would logically think they would be strapped just like the Ravens.  Yet, somehow, they have the magic formula and make it work every single season.  The Packers would be another example.  I understand their players love it there so much, they just plain don't WANT to leave.  The injury bug has bit us hard this year, but we haven't lost Joe yet.  He just doesn't have anyone to throw to.  I had never heard of Darren Waller until we played the Browns, and I understand he is injured  now too.  That makes me really wonder about our strength and conditioning staff.  I'm sure they're looking at everything.  Bisciotti does not like losing.  But it sure is frustrating.

I mean, there are several factors.  riseNConquer81 points out correctly in other posts here that they're in a consistently weak division, so their path to the playoffs is pretty clear year in and year out.  But they consistently win in the playoffs as well.  21 playoff victories under Belichick, 6 AFC Championships, 4 SB wins.  We all know they are known to "bend the rules" up there in NE, so certainly that could be a factor.  But unfair advantage or not, players still have to execute.  And the lack of execution this season is really apparent in Baltimore.  I just think they have a solid overall philosophy and approach in NE.  Not sure Harbs has found that yet here in Charm City.  Our record would dictate that no, he hasn't.  Or, at  a minimum, it isn't working out the way the organization had hoped.  We can still turn it around.  Playoffs?  Probably not this season.  But there's time to right the ship and see if we can get some positive momentum moving forward.

[BillyD]

I think that the people calling for Pees' head right now need to understand that given the state of our roster its hard to imagine that getting rid of Pees will turn things around. It seems obvious to me that a large part of our defensive woes are due to injuries to key players. That combined with the fact that we lost guys like Ngata and McPhee during the offseason due to our salary cap issues(and perhaps overzealousness of the front office) has left us stretched thin. Game plans and defensive systems are important, but at the end of the day much of the NFL is about the man-on-man matchups that happen on the field and whether your guys can outplay the other guys. It doesn't matter what defensive philosophy or play calling you have, when you are missing key players and the other team's players are simply more talented than the ones you have on the field winning is going to be very hard. I fully agree that the bend but don't break philosophy of Dean Pees has some weak spots and has put us at odds with our traditional tough D. Although in some ways I believe that given the fact that the rules now heavily favor offenses the ultra-stingy defenses we saw in the AFC North of yesteryear may be a thing of the past. But the fact of the matter is that the question of whether to continue with Pees' philosophy is probably one best left to the offseason. I don't see how changing DCs and adopting a new system in the middle of a season makes sense. If we're going to revamp our defense and the way it works that's a decision that needs to be made with a lot of serious thought about what direction we want to go in as a team. If we move too hastily to simply save this season or make a statement we could get someone who doesn't fit and set us back for future seasons. It looks to me that our biggest problem isn't so much as bad play calling as the fact that our guys (and especially our secondary) are simply getting beat by the other teams. That to me is a roster problem, not a system problem. Unfortunately this takes time to repair itself. If we want to be competitive for years to come it is probably best to ride this out and leave the question of a new DC for the offseason when we have more time and when more talented coaches will be available for hire.

Great post.  And I certainly think the head-shed is going to be patient, as they always are, with regards to any coaching moves.  I know I myself would love to see Pees go, now or later.  I don't like his philosophy.  Never have.  His defenses gave up big leads in big spots when he was DC in NE, and his defenses continue the same trend in Baltimore.  His development of talent has also been questioned in the past.  But I also see your point with regards to making a change that doesn't work out.  Sort of like out of the frying pan, into the fire. 

 

I really don't buy the thought that we don't have talent.  Even after Sizzle went down and Canty was out, we have still logged 15 sacks through 5 games.  That's not too shabby.  And Jimmy and Webby are good CBs, with Will Hill back there at safety, that's a pretty good corps in the D backfield.  As a coach or a leader, you have to put your players in the best position to win.  I think the fact that the coaching staff has failed to do so, along with the injuries, has put this team is a really tough predicament.  So the frustration is setting in.  At the end of the day, with a 1-4 record would a change really matter?  I'm not sure.  That's why Big Steve makes those decisions, and not us...

[riseNConquer81]

Man, some people are pretty short sighted.

The reason NE continually wins is because of their coaching philosophy. And probably some twisting of the rules. Regardless, 6 AFC Championships. 4 SB wins. Playing in a weak division does not translate to 21 playoff wins, 6 AFC Championships, and 4 SBs since Belichick took over there. Playing in a weak division might get you to the dance. It doesn't win in the playoffs, and it doesn't win SBs. Sorry champ.

the reason NE continually wins is because of their weak division, their cake walk schedules, their constant cheating, and A LOT of luck.

Off the top of my head, if it werent for bad kickers and terrible (now abolished) rules, their 6 AFC Championships quicky dwindles to 3, and the super bowl count drops to 2 along with it.

Playing in a weak division gives you the chance to win (or at least get lucky in) 21 playoff games and also reudces your chances of getting kicked out of the playoffs early since you get a free pass on wildcard weekend every year. Speaking of short sighted people...

 

The question of how many years ago is absolutely relevant, specifically because you stated that NE hasn't had a decent defense since Pees left. Who was the NE DC that year in question, when the Ravens put up 33 on the Pats in their house? DEAN PEES! Therefore, while you defend Pees, you throw out an example of a Pees run defense that gave up 33 points at home in the playoffs. Genius, man.

you forogot to explain the part where how many years ago that was bears relevance to the conversation. That doesnt change or enhance the point youre attempting to make whether it happened yesterday or a decade ago.

on top of that: you seem to think that one bad game makes Pees a bad coordinator...not quite how it works.

you're pretty bad at this, so not much room for you to be facetiously calling me a genius...

 

And just as a history lesson on the Pees era in NE, who was the DC in NE when they gave up a 21-6 half time lead against the Colts in the AFC Championship game in 2006? Dean Pees. Who was the DC in NE when they allowed Eli Manning to go 9 for 14 for 152 yards and 2 TDs in the 4th quarter and lost the SB? Dean Pees. Dean Pees cannot coach a defense to hold a lead.

You should check history before you quote history.

History says Dean Pees has coached in a few hundred games and all you got against him is 3. 3 games does not a trend make. not to mention you're moving the goal post which is a passive concession of defeat in itself. first Pees is a bad coordinator altogether, now its just "he cant coach a D to hold a lead." when your point gets that granular, its usually a good sign you dont have one. there's a myriad of other reasons why you're argument falls flat (not the least of which is a convenient exclusion of the talent level of the defenses he coached, which is funny since this started out as a question about NE's personnel and clearly got derailed by your irrational vendetta against Pees), but needless to say: i think me and history are pretty good until you do a much better job of this arguing otherwise, lol.

History says to me that Pees molded what normally wouldve been some pretty lackluster defenses into overachievers, even if they did fall short in some games.

Edited October 19, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[BillyD]

the reason NE continually wins is because of their weak division, their cake walk schedules, their constant cheating, and A LOT of luck.

Off the top of my head, if it werent for bad kickers and terrible (now abolished) rules, their 6 AFC Championships quicky dwindles to 3, and the super bowl count drops to 2 along with it.

Playing in a weak division gives you the chance to win (or at least get lucky in) 21 playoff games and also reudces your chances of getting kicked out of the playoffs early since you get a free pass on wildcard weekend every year. Speaking of short sighted people...

 

you forogot to explain the part where how many years ago that was bears relevance to the conversation. That doesnt change or enhance the point youre attempting to make whether it happened yesterday or a decade ago.

on top of that: you seem to think that one bad game makes Pees a bad coordinator...not quite how it works.

you're pretty bad at this, so not much room for you to be facetiously calling me a genius...

 

History says Dean Pees has coached in a few hundred games and all you got against him is 3. 3 games does not a trend make. not to mention you're moving the goal post which is a passive concession of defeat in itself. first Pees is a bad coordinator altogether, now its just "he cant coach a D to hold a lead." when your point gets that granular, its usually a good sign you dont have one. there's a myriad of other reasons why you're argument falls flat (not the least of which is a convenient exclusion of the talent level of the defenses he coached, which is funny since this started out as a question about NE's personnel and clearly got derailed by your irrational vendetta against Pees), but needless to say: i think me and history are pretty good until you do a much better job of this arguing otherwise, lol.

History says to me that Pees molded what normally wouldve been some pretty lackluster defenses into overachievers, even if they did fall short in some games.

Pure opinion.  Pure talk.  Absolutely no facts to back it up.  Par for the course in your discussions.  Mind numbing, really.

 

Point 1 - 21 playoff wins, 6 AFC Championships, and 4 SBs is a whole lot of luck along with a whole lot of cheating.  Could be.  But that sure is a whole lot of "what ifs".  Bad kickers?  Terrible rules?  Sure.  No one else has caught any breaks like that in the past decade.

 

Point 2 - It does bear relevance.  Based on your statement, which was that NE hasn't had a good defense since Pees was the coordinator.  Then you immediately citied a NE defense being blown out at home by the Ravens.  Obviously you didn't comprehend the fact that while you were naming Pees the crème de la crème of coordinators in NE and then in the following breath citing a mediocre outing by a NE defense against Baltimore, the same guy you were defending was actually the coach of the "mediocre" defense you were citing.  Additionally, I pointed out that NE did not just lose one game because of defensive let downs or a "bad game" while Pees was there. Obviously you read the post thoroughly based on your half informed response.  To add to the litany of facts supporting the opinion that Pees sucks, Baltimore has lost several games because of defensive let downs. Sorry, not going to list all of them for you.  Why don't you educate yourself on history before responding.  And I wasn't being facetious. You are a genius.

 

Point 3 - History.  I named more than one big spot where he has come up short for the purposes of the discussion.  Want to explore further?  How many games has the D given up this season in Baltimore under Pees?  How many last season?  How did his 9 men in the box, zero coverage work out yesterday against the Niners?  And don't come back at me with some comment on the lack of talent.  He's the DC.  Harbs is the head coach. They signed the guy that was in coverage so one would think that they knew his skill level and abilities.  The Niners sure did.  And they exploited his weaknesses, and the defensive play calling didn't help. You seem to love to give this guy credit.  Why don't you look at his record before you respond with baseless nonsense. 

 

If you believe Pees "molded what normally would've been some pretty lackluster defenses into overachievers", provide some examples to back that claim up.  I don't know what team you have been watching over the past three years that would support that claim, but it can't be the Ravens.  And please, go ahead, refer to the SB win here in Baltimore again.  Cite that one game, which the defense nearly lost.  Be a hypocrite and cite one game while tearing down the counter argument, which consists of dozens of games.  I've only pointed out a few, but Ravens Nation has experienced several in the past three years.  The genius in you loves to discount examples on the other side of the argument and then just talks a lot of baseless trash.  Now that is short sighted. Keep trying to defend your point.  Keep splitting hairs and saying there's such a grand difference in saying that Pees is a bad DC as opposed to saying Pees can't coach a defense to hold a lead.  What's the difference.  Either way the point is he is not good at his job.  But keep trying.  Keep defending.  You might come up with something that makes sense eventually.  Good luck. 

Edited October 19, 2015 by BillyD

[riseNConquer81]

Pure opinion. Pure talk. Absolutely no facts to back it up. Par for the course in your discussions.

Point 1 - 21 playoff wins, 6 AFC Championships, and 4 SBs is a whole lot of luck along with a whole lot of cheating. Could be. But that sure is a whole lot of "what ifs".

lmao really? seriously? "what ifs?" i have to do this with you, you're REALLY gonna try this?

ok fine: here we go:

The tuck rule was a thing: fact.

The tuck rule has been abolished for a few years now: fact.

The tuck rule saved Tom Brady from a turnover via fumble in the pocket: fact.

If that hadnt happened, they lost the AFC CHampionshop against the raiders and therfore obviosuly never even participate in the super bowl let alone win it: fact.

should i continue or do you want to drop this nonsense charge and move on?

 

Point 2 - It does bear relevance. Based on your statement, which was that NE hasn't had a good defense since Pees was the coordinator. NE did not just lose one "bad game" because of defensive let downs while Pees was there, and that was pointed out in my post, which you obviously read thoroughly based on your half informed response. And Baltimore has lost several because of defensive let downs. Why don't you educate yourself on history before responding.

you see how you wrote yet another response that didnt involve chronology at all? that's because it bears no relevance to your point.

and my response is fuly informed, you're just only reading the parts of it you think you can attack. I'm pretty sure i wrapped by stating that 3 games does not form a trend. Against his entire resume: your eveidence is anecdotal and therefore meaningless. again: youre the only one who needs a history lesson. You're lazily attempting to make a point without even looking into what it is you're talking about. You think there's a trend of defensive let downs: show me. you're really just mad because you thought you could point out just 3 games and i would take your word for the rest. I will not.

 

Point 3 - History. I named more than one big spot where he has come up short for the purposes of the discussion.

yeah...this would be the third or fourth time we're addressing your insufficent evidence...see above.

 

Want to explore further? How many games has the D given up this season in Baltimore under Pees? How many last season?

irrelevant. We've had a bunch of injuries and lost a bunch of talent this year and last. Pees is a playcaller, not a magical witch that infuses peple with talent. You cant isolate Pees' performance as a DC from the lack of talent among his personnel, so your assertion will never be anything more than a hypothesis. we've been over this before though, of course...

again though: im interested in your reasoning for avoiding every part of Pees' resume aside from 3 high profile games and his last two seasons in baltimore.

 

How did his 9 men in the box, zero coverage work out yesterday against the Niners?

more anecdotes.

 

And don't come back at me with some comment on the lack of talent.

now why would i go and abandon a valid point that you obviously cant rebut? sorry, im not just gonna throw stuff out in order to make it easier for you to pretend you have a point.

 

He's the DC. Harbs is the head coach. They signed the guy that was in coverage so one would think that they knew his skill level and abilities. The Niners sure did.

what's your point?

1) he's not the only guy that got beat

2) committing a bunch of resources to cover up Wright's weaknesses just makes other holes else where in the defense that can be exploited. wo what now? wanna play call to cover up everybody's weaknesses? no, because thats impossible...which you already know.

you know how you avoid these kinds of connundrums? you guessed it: better talent. funny how everything comes full circle that way, huh?

 

Why don't you look at his record before you respond with baseless nonsense.

why dont you practice what you preach? the way you're forming your arguments makes it very clear that you know nothing about him or his accomplishments outside of super bowl appearnaces and what he's done in baltimore. dont pretend to know more than you do.

 

If you believe Pees "molded what normally would've been some pretty lackluster defenses into overachievers", provide some examples to back that claim up. I don't know what team you have been watching over the past three years that would support that claim, but it can't be the Ravens. The genius in you loves to discount examples on the other side of the argument and then just talks a lot of baseless trash. Now that is short sighted. Keep trying to defend your point. You might come up with something that makes sense eventually. Good luck.

ummm, a nearly perfect season, couple super bowl appearances, and a string of top 10 defenses isnt good enough for you?

you're right, it wasnt the ravens. up until las year, the ravens have had better defensive talent than any New ENgland team couldve dreamed of in the past decade. incidentally though, Pees did manage to post a top 8 defense despite a revolving door of no names at almost every position in his secondary last year. Not only is that pretty good, but its actually an IMPROVEMENT over the 12th rated defense from a year prior. which means he made an already pretty good defense even better with less talent DURING a season that saw the division field 3 playoff teams. Then marched right up to the doorstep of the AFCCG against the Pats, whom he buried in a 14 point whole twice until they started running plays that aren't even legal anymore...so there's that.

And if others' arguments werent discountable in the first place, then you wouldnt have that problem would you?

Stop whining about your inability to prove your point and actually work on proving it. you spend more time talking about me than the football, that's where you're going wrong.

Edited October 19, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[BillyD]

lmao really? seriously? "what ifs?" i have to do this with you, you're REALLY gonna try this?

ok fine: here we go:

The tuck rule was a thing: fact.

The tuck rule has been abolished for a few years now: fact.

The tuck rule saved Tom Brady from a turnover via fumble in the pocket: fact.

If that hadnt happened, they lost the AFC CHampionshop against the raiders and therfore obviosuly never even participate in the super bowl let alone win it: fact.

should i continue or do you want to drop this nonsense charge and move on?

you see how you wrote yet another response that didnt involve chronology at all? that's because it bears no relevance to your point.

and my response is fuly informed, you're just only reading the parts of it you think you can attack. I'm pretty sure i wrapped by stating that 3 games does not form a trend. Against his entire resume: your eveidence is anecdotal and therefore meaningless. again: youre the only one who needs a history lesson. You're lazily attempting to make a point without even looking into what it is you're talking about. You think there's a trend of defensive let downs: show me. you're really just mad because you thought you could point out just 3 games and i would take your word for the rest. I will not.

yeah...this would be the third or fourth time we're addressing your insufficent evidence...see above.

irrelevant. We've had a bunch of injuries and lost a bunch of talent this year and last. Pees is a playcaller, not a magical which that infuses peple with talent. we've been over this before though, of course...

again though: im interested in your reasoning for avoiding every part of Pees' resume aside from 3 high profile games and his last two seasons in baltimore.

more anecdotes.

now why would i go and abandon a valid point that you obviously cant rebut? sorry, im not just gonna throw stuff out in order to make it easier for you to pretend you have a point.

what's your point?

1) he's not the only guy that got beat

2) committing a bunch of resources to cover up Wright's weaknesses just makes other holes else where in the defense that can be exploited. wo what now? wanna play call to cover up everybody's weaknesses? no, because thats impossible...which you already know.

you know how you avoid these kinds of connundrums? you guessed it: better talent. funny how everything comes full circle that way, huh?

why dont you practice what you preach? the way you're forming your arguments makes it very clear that you know nothing about him or his accomplishments outside of super bowl appearnaces and what he's done in baltimore. dont pretend to know more than you do.

ummm, a nearly perfect season, couple super bowl appearances, and a string of top 10 defenses isnt good enough for you?

you're right, it wasnt the ravens. up until las year, the ravens have had better defensive talent than any New ENgland team couldve dreamed of in the pst decade.

And if others' arguments werent discountable in the first place, then you wouldnt have that problem would you?

Stop whining about your inability to prove your point and actually work on proving it 

Hahahahaha!  Yeahhhh, right!  Pees is so accomplished!  Laughable, man!  I'll end this here.   

Edited October 19, 2015 by MTRavensFan
insult removed

[BillyD]

what's your point?

1) he's not the only guy that got beat

2) committing a bunch of resources to cover up Wright's weaknesses just makes other holes else where in the defense that can be exploited. wo what now? wanna play call to cover up everybody's weaknesses? no, because thats impossible...which you already know.

you know how you avoid these kinds of connundrums? you guessed it: better talent. funny how everything comes full circle that way, huh?

    

Gee, I guess that's why Seattle is having so many issues on defense this season, too...they have no talent!  Has nothing to do with the DC. 

 

Please sir, don't respond to this.  Thanks.

[riseNConquer81]

Gee, I guess that's why Seattle is having so many issues on defense this season, too...they have no talent!  Has nothing to do with the DC. 

 

Please sir, don't respond to this. Thanks.

 

Seattle is having issues because they lost their DC. Dan Quinn is in Atlanta now (who coincidentally, is playing better defense than they ever have).

on top of that, their right corner position has been downgrading every year...they went from Brandon Browner, to Byron Maxwell, and now they're down to cary williams. subsequently, because its next man up: the nickel has been getting weaker every year as well.

theyve also lost Linebacker depth which is why TE's keep destroying them, and they played their first three games without Chancellor.

all of that is beside the point though (and not just because they're still a top 4 defense despite their troubles), Seattle's situation doesnt match ours at all. Unlike Seattle, you cant point to a group of top tier talent that simply isnt performing due to either Pees' presence or lack thereof. He has never helmed a terrible defense when there was decent talent around, and no defense he has left has ever dramatically improved following his departure.

nice try though. lol

Edited October 19, 2015 by MTRavensFan
insults removed

[BillyD]

Seattle is having issues because they lost their DC. Dan Quinn is in Atlanta now (who coincidentally, is playing better defense than they ever have).

and on top of that their right corner position has been downgrading every year...they went from Brandon Browner, to Byron Maxwell, and now they're down to cary williams now. and subsequently, because its next man up: the nickkel has been getting weaker every year as well.

theyve also lost Linebacker depth which is why TE's keep destroying them, and they played their first three games without Chancellor.

all of that is beside the point though, Seattle's situation doesnt match ours at all. Unlike Seattle, you cant point to a group of top tier talent that simply isnt performing due to either Pees' presence or lack thereof. He has never helmed a terrible defense when there was decent talent around.

nice try though. lol

I should have known you would respond!  Lol!  You just can't help yourself!

 

All things aside, it's all good.  As I've said before, you have your opinions, I have mine.  Deuces.